Chest Rig preference

[Jammer]

If you are injured as a direct result of not wearing your plates in the issue vest, you may not be eligable for SISIP benefits.

 

[PuckChaser]

I would assume its the same reasoning as the "you're not covered" crowd for helmet pad systems, non-issued boots, non-issued ballistic eyewear, etc. I personally don't see an issue as long as the plates end up in the same position, covering the same areas.

As for SOFCOM, maybe they're the only command that's asked for permission/had Defense Science rubberstamp it as safe?

 

[Jarnhamar]

If you are injured as a direct result of not wearing your plates in the issue vest, you may not be eligable for SISIP benefits.

Ahh, I've actually heard this before.

It was a rumor (started by a CoC  I would imagine) that wearing non-issued BEW (oakleys) would result in SISIP not covering the member if they lost an eye. "that's why you can't wear oakleys, troops"

We actually called SISIP and they said it was untrue. Coverage is coverage regardless if you're in a firefire wearing full PP&E, hit by shrapnel while in a shitter without BEWs on or in a car accident while on leave.

Maybe it's changed in the last couple of years.

 

[Jammer]

When it comes to safety systems there is very little room for interpretation. As Puck will recall the BG RSM directed that the shoulder protectors would be worn with the frag vest as well. it was the first time I had ever worn them, however the dictum that it was a lawful order was a very convincing argument. Ergo, if the BG RSM sez so...it will be done...period.

 

[Jarnhamar]

When it comes to safety systems there is very little room for interpretation. As Puck will recall the BG RSM directed that the shoulder protectors would be worn with the frag vest as well. it was the first time I had ever worn them, however the dictum that it was a lawful order was a very convincing argument. Ergo, if the BG RSM sez so...it will be done...period.

For sure, a lawful order is a lawful order.

 

[Jammer]

....but then again there are always feel they know better or just want to be different to make up for some lack of love from thier mother....

 

[PuckChaser]

It was a rumor (started by a CoC  I would imagine) that wearing non-issued BEW (oakleys) would result in SISIP not covering the member if they lost an eye. "that's why you can't wear oakleys, troops"

Since we're not in a gunfight anymore, the rumour has morphed into "If you don't have a med chit for SWATs, VAC won't cover you if you get a foot/knee/ankle injury because of the boots." As if the SWAT boot knows the difference between someone with a chit and someone without.

Jammer: I do remember that, but I prefer them to the stupid water-wings that come issued with the vest out of clothing stores so it wasn't a big issue for me. As you said, BG RSM says so, I do so, whether I think its dumb or not.

 

[Sig_Des]

I really hate the "SISIP won't pay out" boogeyman. Guess if you got hurt by a rocket while wearing shorts and flip flops on KAF, you'd be hooped according to some.

 

[Tank Troll]

Our BG RSM told us we could wear what we want as long as it didn't look to far out of place. Plus we are doing a lot of work in small groups spread all over the AOR.

 

[Jammer]

You're missing the point BW-7.

Not wearing the plates in the issued vest was/is a direct violation of BG policy...therefore in a Report of Medical Injuries if it states you were not wearing issued safety systems when it was possible for you to do so...you might be "hooped". Like it or not...there it is.

TT: Pretty ballsy for a BG RSM to say that. When was this?

Over my five tours in Afg I have never heard from anyone that it was authorized to wear issue plates in a non issue chest rig.

That being said non issue chest rigs were generally GTG OTW, however you HAD to wear the plates as issued in the frag vest.

This was policy in all BG units. CANSOF units had a different authorized policy.

 

[Sig_Des]

You're missing the point BW-7.

Not wearing the plates in the issued vest was/is a direct violation of BG policy...therefore in a Report of Medical Injuries if it states you were not wearing issued safety systems when it was possible for you to do so...you might be "hooped". Like it or not...there it is.

No, I had the point. If you're told to wear issued gear in a certain manner, fine. When guys ask why, you can tell them "Because you've been ordered too." There it is. Guys don't do it, 129. Wether you agree with the original order doesn't matter. That's fine.

My issue is with the token answer many higher-ups will give when asked "Why can't I wear oakleys/swats/plate carrier/polk-a-dot thongs" is "Because if you get hurt, SISIP won't pay you out"

I have never seen an official statement that says if you're hurt while wearing non-issue kit/no PPE, that you will lose out on a SISIP payout. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people who use the threat haven't either. Now I could very well be wrong, and I'll be checking the fine print of my SISIP policy when I get home. But I have never seen anyone in any CoC back up the threat with a clear-cut official document.

At least with "Because The army/the RSM/I told you so" there's a reason that's not based off a common belief.

 

[Tank Troll]

TT: Pretty ballsy for a BG RSM to say that. When was this?

couple of months ago

 

[Jammer]

as in what TF?

 

[Tank Troll]

2/13

 

[Jammer]

There is a line up of folks who are fighting the system right now, and getting nowhere. Thankfully i have never had to endure the song and dance...but I know of several cases right now that have them flopping from SISIP to DVA and back again.

No one wants to own the problem.

 

[Jammer]

TT....You were specifically authorized to wear issue Gen IV plates in non issue chest rigs?

TF 2-13 RiPed us out and arrived wearing the original issue desert tac vest.

R1 Op Attention was issued SORD rigs with the front/back plate carriers....we were never authorized to use them however.

 

[Jarnhamar]

No, I had the point. If you're told to wear issued gear in a certain manner, fine. When guys ask why, you can tell them "Because you've been ordered too." There it is. Guys don't do it, 129. Wether you agree with the original order doesn't matter. That's fine.

My issue is with the token answer many higher-ups will give when asked "Why can't I wear oakleys/swats/plate carrier/polk-a-dot thongs" is "Because if you get hurt, SISIP won't pay you out"

I have never seen an official statement that says if you're hurt while wearing non-issue kit/no PPE, that you will lose out on a SISIP payout. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people who use the threat haven't either. Now I could very well be wrong, and I'll be checking the fine print of my SISIP policy when I get home. But I have never seen anyone in any CoC back up the threat with a clear-cut official document.

At least with "Because The army/the RSM/I told you so" there's a reason that's not based off a common belief.

Exactly.
An order is an order.  The only reasons I've heard for not allowing soldiers to wear plates in platecarriers has been:
1. it negates your SISIP coverage (untrue); and
2. soldiers might take off their chest rig and forget their plates are in.


If the CoC wants to give an order without any reason that's one thing. Leadership should never lie in order to add substance to an order.

 

[SKG709]

I move pretty frequently between the C7, C9 and C6. Anyone have a recommendations and a chest rig I can buy that will do the job of riflemen and machine gunner?

 

[Jarnhamar]

The SORD chest rigs are pretty solid including being issued and used by some units in the CAF.  They have some different variant setups too like rifleman,machine gunner and commander (which is just a few different pocket options).
Really you'd only need something that can swap out two side pouches in order to accommodate 2 C9 boxes or C6 belts.

I'm not a big fan of randomly switching soldiers through weapon systems and positions.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The SORD chest rigs are pretty solid including being issued and used by some units in the CAF.  They have some different variant setups too like rifleman,machine gunner and commander (which is just a few different pocket options).
Really you'd only need something that can swap out two side pouches in order to accommodate 2 C9 boxes or C6 belts.

I'm not a big fan of randomly switching soldiers through weapon systems and positions.

Agreed. Although a change round may be forced due to casualties, unfortunately.